Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argumentation ethics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I'm suggesting a merge as an WP:ATD per User:Chalst's suggestion. If another article makes sense for merging, please discuss that on the appropriate talk page(s). Thanks! Missvain (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentation ethics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic seems to be only source-able to blogs and sources connected with the Ludwig von Mises Institute where the creator, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is a senior fellow. I can not find that this concept has gained traction in the wider conversation outside of the Mises Institute. JSTOR brings in no useful sources and most the sources found through google scholar (Libertarian Papers, Journal of Libertarian Studies, etc.) seem to be Mises Institute-affiliated. In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 19:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mises Institute is the center of scholarly libertarian thought -- anything recently published in Libertarian philosophy is likely to be affiliated with them. I wouldn't expect JSTOR to adequately document recently published Libertarian philosophy journal articles, it's somewhat out of their scope. Mac Davis (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR is a catalogue of academic journals so stating "I wouldn't expect JSTOR to adequately document . . . [recently published] Libertarian philosophy journal articles" isn't really a good argument. It doesn't actually help your case at all. The fact that it has no traction outside of the MISES institute means that it effectively isn't properly peer reviewed either. It should've been shopped around to people outside of the institute, and it should have been cited beyond the Mises to qualify as noteworthy here. In academic terms, this . . . Thought is in trouble from the get go. This is not to mention that the whole premise is a logical fallacy. The reason why it hasn't been taken up by any other institution or journal is because the premise is faulty, lacks falsifiability, and isn't worth consideration, not because it's libertarian. Any properly peer reviewed journal would send this paper back saying as much in a heart beat. I don't even know if it would hit the peer review process, because it's honestly that bad.

I think this combined with the fact that it's effectively just limited to the MISES institute echo chamber is grounds for deletion off Wikipedia.

2600:8803:5B00:3CE:ADCA:BDF4:8DFB:B5C0 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while this "theory" is, frankly, a lot of nonsense, and is deeply flawed on several different levels (from logical and ontological to semantical... it's simply a hot mess), it has been referenced or discussed by secondary sources (example), so I think the article just needs to be improved somewhat. BeŻet (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Article states: "Argumentation Ethics has received marginal attention from philosophers and logicians". If that is the case, we shouldn't have an article for a not notable idea. But is it true? A google-scholar-search yields 236 results, some of them though are not about the topic of the article (an example: [1]). So, I am mostly undecided, but slightly leaning towards Keep. Cinadon36 07:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less than half of these hits cite Hoppe: cf. 108nGSchol hits for hoppe "Argumentation ethics". — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The coverage seems adequate for the purposes of verifiability, but the idea seems only to have been taken up by one other person, Stephan Kinsella. I don't really get the idea from the article: justifying the existence of rights from the needs of rational agents was the big idea of Alan Gewirth in Reason and Morality, and Gewirth's student Roger Pilon attempted to apply Gewirth's theory to justify libertarianism in work published in 1979. What did Hoppe do that was new? If the coverage of the idea is overly Hoppe-centric, I'm inclined to merge what we have to our Hoppe article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That s a valid point, merging might be more suitable. Cinadon36 09:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.